‘AN ALTERNATIVE WAY TO DO POLITICS’
Shahril Hamdan believes that the middle ground should be the path for Malaysian politics and discourse, given the starkly polarised opinions on many issues of late. The Umno Youth vice-chief is also co-founder of The Centre, an apolitical think tank worki
Question: What is your general take on today’s issues?
Answer: There doesn’t seem to be any discernible ideology underpinning economic growth or development. There have been many contradictory measures and it is not clear what the story is, or what the belief systems are, in terms of bringing this country forward. It is very disconcerting to see the lack of direction.
Our source of competitiveness is no longer about low-cost labour, low cost of land and productivity. Granted, some of these problems are structural, systemic problems. But when the economy is not doing well, other issues will start bubbling up, such as diversity issues and race relations. Religious sentiments get riled up easily.
To sum it up, I think it’s quite underwhelming and worrying.
I also think polarisation has worsened. For some of the reasons I had mentioned, I think people are living in their own siloed worldview. There’s a trend here to speak in echo chambers. The state of politics in the past 13 months has brought about wildly differing views from the people about the same thing.
I feel that we are polarised on almost everything.
Q: Tell us more about the role of The Centre.
A: We hope to contribute by making policies, facts and research the basis of Malaysian politics. That’s the first true north. If the research backs up our initial hypothesis, then many of the factbased solutions to the country’s problems are actually centrist in nature. That will be consistent with The Centre’s values.
For example, what do we do about local economic development? What should we do with state economic development corporations (SEDC)?
If you are left wing, you’d say SEDCs should be active in all nature of public services or businesses, because then you can ensure the interests of the people are covered, and it is not profitoriented, among others.
If you are an idealist libertarian, you would say SEDCs have no role whatsoever, and (instead) we should encourage entrepreneurs and companies to compete on merit and then they will come up with the best solutions on how to develop the local economic activities.
The centrist position will be like, “Let’s look at what SEDCs are doing now. Are there ways that we can propose ideas for them to be more effective in their objectives, which is to be less dependent on federal grants, but at the same time not just be completely profitoriented?”
We can also ask how can they occupy a space that would actually be value-creating for the private sector, individuals and entrepreneurs.
So let’s say you’re in an SEDC in Perlis. There is a business for
tapai (fermented glutinous rice). Do you venture in and produce tapai?
Or do you assist and take a stake in some local entrepreneurs’ tech-based solution?
Right now, my understanding is that an SEDC stands to be involved and run the businesses itself. Is that the best way? Maybe from a centrist hypothesis, there are better ways to do it and achieve the same outcomes as an SEDC by mandate.
So that’s one, you know, a very specific example of what kind of policy research you might be interested in. Think about stuff around minimum wage, education policy, the teaching and learning of Science and Mathematics in English and all these development, social development and economic development.
What are the specific policy solutions that we can perhaps contribute?
We think that the state of politics right now is so much based on sentiment and intrigue. Intrigue is a big word for me. For me, there’s too much intrigue. It is that kind of a conversation, which clearly, doesn’t matter which party you belong to, is not good for a country. It is not going to fulfil the country’s potential, such coffee shop talk.
Q: How do your views sit with the others?
A: Let me approach the question from a different angle. There is a broader problem of polarisation and extremes in global politics. As an indictment of how capitalism has failed to get people in the franchise, people all around the world seem to be attracted to black and white simplistic worldviews.
So whether it is anti-immigration policies of United States President Donald Trump or the United Kingdom’s Brexit, or race relations in Malaysia, there seems to be that kind of attraction and appeal. And successive elections all around the world suggest that is a route to shortterm electoral success.
I’m young. I am idealistic, perhaps too idealistic for my own good. But for me, I’ve always taken the long-term view. And I think that beyond short-term successes, it is what we do every day and every year that has a real impact on the future generations when we leave this world.
And if we only think in a fiveyear time frame, that is the flaw in the foundation that will hurt you in the long term.
We’re not under any illusion that a think tank will solve any problem, but we want to throw out an alternative platform for people to see that there’s a different way to do politics. This is not party-related. It is not to say that party politics doesn’t have a role.
As Umno Youth’s No. 2, I believe in that method of changing things. Sometimes, you’ve got to act not only through your party position, but also externally, to influence the overall political culture.
In my role as an Umno member, there are certain expectations, there are certain rules that I have to fulfil. And if the priority is more about immediate party political achievements, it is not to any one party’s fault that we lost in the long term.
Because of that state of political culture, The Centre throws an alternative platform for people to be reminded that at the end of the day, policies matter alongside the intrigue and the political plays. There’s also this genuine objective space for people to debate, argue and disagree based on facts.
We hope to convince some people to include this element of objectivity and dispassionate, and rigorous fact-based approach into looking at problems in this country.
I’m excited about The Centre and I hope that politicians on both sides of the divide will see it is as an honest contribution.
Q: Do you see the opposition placing themselves as a constructive bloc?
A: I think it’s a mixed bag. There are moments where the opposition political parties, Umno, Pas, MCA and MIC, for example, come up with good analyses. They are obviously laced with partisan language, that’s a given. So I think even while they’re doing a good job, there is also a space for a non-party vehicle.
The quality of some of our in
The Centre throws an alternative platform for people to be reminded that at the end of the day, policies matter alongside the intrigue and the political plays.
terventions is good, but can be improved.
Q: Is Umno equipped in its role as the opposition?
A: Umno has a huge responsibility. Not only to further its cause, which is for Malays, Malaysians and Islam. But it has a huge responsibility on its shoulders to do all of these things in a way that is not divisive.
It is very easy to score quick political points, maybe to win certain by-elections. And I don’t know, maybe even win the general election by playing up racial sentiments.
Just because that may be true, it does not mean it’s the right thing to do. So there needs to be voices in Umno that always reminds ourselves that if Umno is
“keramat” (sacred) then we have a huge responsibility to our future generations to do the right thing. And doing the right thing sometimes means taking a more difficult path.
Islam does not condone divisive politics, it does not condone putting people down, it does not condone making enemies out of people who may not be enemies. It (the religion) favours friendship and peace. That’s my reading and I think that’s also how many other people think what Islam and politics ought to be.
Q: So what is Islamic politics?
A: In the Malaysian context, Malay and Islam are dominant elements, regardless of whoever is in charge. I am not wavering on that an inch. But people should look up to you not because of fear or you happen to be the majority.
If supremacy has a wider definition which traverses leadership, then I prefer Malay leadership, instead of Malay supremacy. Leadership has a broader meaning. You have to lead.
“Ketuanan” can just be interpreted as the relationship between employees and their boss. We want leadership, instead of just having a rule.
Again, this might be an example of how idealistic I am. I want a more positive rendering of what Malay supremacy is in Malaysia.
I think if you ask me what is the state of Malay and Islamic politics, it should be about providing leadership that everyone supports. You get support from a wide cross-section of the society, not just from your own community.
Q: But at times, when it comes to moving forward, the opposition is seen to be dishing out rhetoric.
A: I think it is no secret that individuals like me are seen to be more moderate and more multicultural in our approach to politics than some other Umno members and leaders. So there is no point for me to pretend it to be otherwise.
But where others see that as a problem, I see it as an opportunity and as a credit to Umno’s big tent for Malays who have similarly different shades of colour. There are Malays who are extremely conservative in Umno and there are also Malays who are more modern in their worldview and they are also welcome in the party.
Will there be tension internally? Yes, there will always be tension. There has always been due to different shades of the same ideology.
Now the question is, if it is going too much to the right, will someone like me feel too distant from it?
That is a question that I will always have to ask myself.
As of now, I still believe that I have something to contribute, that I can still play my part in, you know, just giving slightly different shades of how you see the world.
Q: What are the pros and cons of working with Pas?
A: The pros are your electoral arithmetic, that is the immediate and obvious benefit. Other pros are the ability to reconfigure the Malay political sphere in a way that takes the best of both parties. This will be a cliche remark, but Umno has its disadvantages and so does Pas.
On paper, some of these advantages are the same, but there are also some advantages that can complement each other.
Pas’ advantage, which perhaps Umno is slightly lacking, is the ability to articulate all manner of national issues from an Islamic point of view, which obviously, appeases a section of the Malay voters.
If you can combine those (elements) without diluting it, then theoretically, the Malay political position will be richer for it.
The cons include the dilution of each other’s identity. And the other thing to avoid is the consolidation of this extreme rightwing rhetoric which doesn’t have to be the case.
I am hopeful that this Umno and Pas union can come up with an identity or a brand that appeals to all Malays and is respected by non-Malays. It has to be policy based and both parties need to come out with sets of policies. Put themselves as a government in waiting. Both need to get other parties involved, not just lip service to MIC and MCA.
They should have strong representation in whatever comes, whatever happens. It also means talking about Malaysian issues not only from a racial lens. Not everything has to be articulated through race or religion and some things are simply not about race.
If we can show that we can offer that kind of perspective, we can contribute to the idea that Umno and Pas’ union should not scare anyone, and it is for Malaysians.
All these rhetorical statements that have come out from Umno and Pas leaders are good statements even though they are rhetorical because it is on record. I think these are some of the concrete steps.